# Mahraj Uddin and others v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 711
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-05-26
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26114 of 2011
- **Bench:** Ashok Bhushan, Ran Vijai Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahraj-uddin-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41981
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988-Section-68 (4)
Authority granted permit to play three
wheeler
on
specified
root-with
condition-to replace new model after
expiry of 5 years-in case of default
permit
deemed
to
canceled
automatically-challenged on basis of
earlier judgment of this court as well as
of tribunal-held-misconceived period of
20 years relates to Buses CNG and non
CNG Vehicle and not for three wheelertill
appropriate
decision
taken
by
tribunal
regarding
three
wheelercondition of permit stand modified from
5 to 7 years-prayer to play the vehicle
upto 20 years can not be extended.

Held: Para 27 and 28

In view of the foregoing discussions and
conclusions, we dispose of this writ
petition with the following directions:

## Text

2 All Mahraj Uddin and others V. State of U.P. and others
711
sending the same immediately to the
S.S.P., Kanpur Nagar.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.05.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26114 of 2011

Mahraj Uddin and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri S.N.Jaiswal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.P. Kesarwani(Addl. C.S.C.)
Sri J.S. Upadhya (S.C.)
C.S.C.

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988-Section-68 (4)
Authority granted permit to play three
wheeler
on
specified
root-with
condition-to replace new model after
expiry of 5 years-in case of default
permit
deemed
to
canceled
automatically-challenged on basis of
earlier judgment of this court as well as
of tribunal-held-misconceived period of
20 years relates to Buses CNG and non
CNG Vehicle and not for three wheelertill
appropriate
decision
taken
by
tribunal
regarding
three
wheelercondition of permit stand modified from
5 to 7 years-prayer to play the vehicle
upto 20 years can not be extended.

Held: Para 27 and 28

In view of the foregoing discussions and
conclusions, we dispose of this writ
petition with the following directions:

1. The S.T.A. is fully justified to put
model
condition
regarding
age
of
vehicles (including three wheeler).

2. The decision of the STA dated
23/2/2010, which is the basis for
putting
model
condition
in
the
petitioners permit that vehicles are to be
changed after 5 years, having been setaside, the period of 5 years in the model
condition
in
the
permits
of
the
petitioners shall stand substituted by the
period of 7 years which was prevalent
prior to 23/2/2010.

3. The model condition in the
petitioners vehicles (which are three
wheelers) shall be read to the effect that
the petitioners have to change their
vehicles after 7 years, failing which their
permits
shall
be
treated
to
be
automatically cancelled.

4. That the above directions shall
continue till the STA takes any other
decision fixing any other age of vehicles
(three wheelers) in accordance with law.

The prayer of the petitioners that a
direction be issued to the respondent
no.2, Regional Transport Officer, Meerut
to permit the petitioners to ply their
three wheelers up to the age of 20 years,
cannot be granted and is refused.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.)

1. Heard Shri S.N.Jaiswal, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.P.
Kesarwani,
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. By this writ petition, petitioners
have prayed for a writ of mandamus
directing the respondent no.2, Regional
Transport Officer, Meerut to permit the
petitioners to ply their vehicles (Three
Wheeler) upto the age of 20 years.

Counter and rejoinder affidavit have
been exchanged between the parties.
712 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

3. Brief facts of the case as emerge
from the pleading of the parties are:

4. The petitioners are owners of three
wheeler vehicles who are plying their
vehicles within the municipal limits of
Meerut. The petitioners have been granted
permit by the Regional Transport Officer,
Meerut in accordance with the provisions
of
the
Motor
Vehicles
Act,
1988
(hereinafter called the "Act 1988").
Petitioners' vehicles are almost 5 years old.
The Regional Transport Officer, Meerut
has put a remark on the permit issued to
the petitioners that if the vehicles are more
than 5 years old, the vehicles should be
replaced by new model, which is within 5
years, otherwise the permit granted to them
could
be
treated
as
cancelled
automatically. The model condition of the
three wheeler vehicles has been fixed as 5
years by the order of the State Transport
Authority, Lucknow (hereinafter called the
"S.T.A."). Prior to the order of the S.T.A.
dated 23/2/2010, the maximum age of
vehicles of auto rickshaw (Three Wheeler)
in the city area was fixed as 7 years. The
STA in its meeting dated 23/2/2010, took a
decision in exercise of power under
Section 68(4) of the Act, 1988 prescribing
different age of the vehicles. The present
writ petition has been filed by the owners
of Auto Rickshaw (Three Wheelers).
According to the decision of the STA
dated 23/2/2010, tempo-taxi and auto
rickshaw with regard to Meerut and certain
other metropolitan cities the age of the
vehicles has been fixed as 5 years, looking
to the air pollution created by them.

5. The petitioners' case in the writ
petition is that the decision of the STA
dated 23/2/2010, was challenged before the
State
Transport
Appellate
Tribunal,
(hereinafter called the "Tribunal") by
certain vehicle owners by way of revision
where the Tribunal passed a final order on
08/12/2010, in Revision no. 40/2010,
Rajesh Yadav Vs. The State Transport
Authority, U.P. Lucknow Through its
Chairman/Secretary & Anr. and other
connected revisions. The revisions were
allowed and the orders impugned were setaside and the age limitation for stage
carriage buses plying on various routes,
single storied vehicles were fixed as 20
years, for non-C.N.G. city buses 15 years,
and for C.N.G. city buses 12 years.
Relying on the said judgment of the
Tribunal dated 08/12/2010, the petitioners
claim that the age of their three wheelers
be fixed as 20 years. Following prayers
have been made in the writ petition by the
petitioners:

"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction,
in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent
no.2,
Regional
Transport
Officer, Meerut to permit the petitioners to
ply their vehicles (Three Wheeler) upto the
age of 20 years.

(ii) or to issue any other and further
order or direction as this Hon'ble Court
may
deem
fit
and
proper
in
the
circumstances of the case.

(iii) to award cost of the writ petition
to the petitioners."

6. Short Counter Affidavit has been
filed by the respondents in which reliance
has been placed on the directions issued by
the STA dated 05/3/2010, issued on the
basis of the resolution dated 23/2/2010.

7. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed
by the petitioners, where the copy of the
judgement
of
the
Tribunal
dated
08/12/2010 in Revision No.40/2010, as
2 All Mahraj Uddin and others V. State of U.P. and others
713
well as the order of this Court dated
27/1/2011
passed
in
Writ
Petition
No.62045/2010, Smt. Usha Sharma Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors, has been brought on
the record as Annexures 2 and 3 to the
Rejoinder Affidavit.

8. We have heard learned counsel for
the parties and have perused the record.

9. Shri S.N.Jaiswal, learned counsel
for the petitioners in support of the writ
petition submits that the decision of the
STA dated 23/2/2010, having been setaside by the Tribunal, the petitioners are
entitled to ply their vehicles up to 20 years
and the model condition put in the
petitioners permit by which it was
endorsed that the vehicles shall be changed
after 5 years, failing which it shall be
treated to be cancelled be set-aside is
unjustified. Reliance has been placed on
the orders of this Court passed in Writ
Petition
No.22378/2010
decided
on
10/5/2007
and
Writ
Petition
No.14050/2010 decided on 18/3/2010
wherein both the Division Benches of this
Court disposed of the writ petitions with
certain directions.

10. Shri S.P. Kesarwani, learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the respondents has relied on
the circular dated 05/3/2010, issued by the
STA prescribing various age for all
categories of vehicles including three
wheelers. He submits that for non-C.N.G.
vehicles i.e. tempo and auto rickshaw,
maximum age has been fixed as 5 years
with regard to the metropolitan cities, and
for other cities for non-C.N.G. vehicles age
has been fixed as 8 years and for C.N.G.
vehicles i.e. tempo and auto rickshaw in
rural area the age has been fixed as 10
years.

11. Shri S.P. Kesarwani, learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the respondents has however,
not disputed that the order of the STA has
been set-aside by the Tribunal vide
judgment and order dated 08/12/2010, in
revision.

12. The first issue which is to be
considered is as to whether the Regional
Transport Authority, (hereinafter called the
"R.T.A") while granting permits can
impose model condition for grant of permit
i.e. fixing of age of the vehicles. Section
68(4) of the Act, 1988 is relevant in this
context. Section 68 (3) and (4) of the Act,
1988 which are relevant in the present case
are quoted below:

"68.Transport Authorities-

(1) ............................

(2)........................

(3) The State Transport Authority and
every Regional Transport Authority shall
give effect to any directions issued under
section 67 and the State Transport
Authority shall, subject to such directions
and save as otherwise provided by or under
this Act, exercise and discharge throughout
the State the following powers and
functions, namely :-

(a) to co-ordinate and regulate the
activities and policies of the Regional

Transport Authorities, if any, of the
State ;

(b) to perform the duties of a
Regional Transport Authority where there
is no such Authority and, if it thinks fit or
if so required by a Regional Transport
714 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
Authority, to perform those duties in
respect of any route common to two or
more regions;

(c) to settle all disputes and decide all
matters on which differences of opinion
arise
between
Regional
Transport
Authorities;

[(ca) Government to formulate routes
for plying stage carriages; and ]

(d) to discharge such other functions
as may be prescribed.

(4) For the purpose of exercising and
discharging the powers and functions
specified in sub-section (3), a State
Transport Authority may, subject to such
conditions as may be prescribed, issue
directions to any Regional Transport
Authority, and the Regional Transport
Authority shall, in the discharge of its
functions under this Act, give effect to and
be guided by such directions."

13. Under Section 68 (3) of the Act,
1988, the STA subject to the directions
issued by the State Government under
Section 67 shall exercise and discharge
throughout the State the functions and
powers as enumerated in sub-section 3.
One of the functions provided in subsection 3 is to co-oordinate and regulate
the activities and policies of the R.T. A.

14. The question as to whether model
condition for grant of permit can be laid
down
by
the
STA
came
up
for
consideration before the Division Bench of
this Court in 1995 AWC 890, Smt. Munni
Devi Vs. Regional Transport Authority,
Meerut & Ors. In the aforesaid case, the
R.T.A., Meerut while granting permit has
put a condition that not more than 10 years
old vehicles be provided. The said
condition was challenged by means of writ
petition by stage carriage permit holders. It
was held by the Division Bench that the
STA can issue direction regarding fixation
of age of vehicles. Even grant of permit by
the R.T.A of the vehicle owners having 10
years old vehicles was upheld. Following
was laid down in para 6 which is quoted
below:

"6.
State
Transport
Authority,
Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as
S.T.A.) has fixed the model condition of
twenty years for vehicles to be placed
under stage carriage permits with the result
that an operator is entitled to ply a vehicle
which is not more than twenty years old.
S.T.A. has also, in this connection, issued
direction on 9.3.1993 under sub-section (4)
of Section 68, to all the R.T.A.s. in this
State requiring them to impose only twenty
years model condition for plain routes and
ten years model condition for hill routes.
These directions have been issued by the
S.T.A. in view of the difference of opinion
on the question of model condition
between the R.T.As. in this State. There is
no dispute that S.T.A. can issue such a
direction. Direction issued by S.T.A. under
the above provisions is binding on the
R.T.A. which is to "give effect to and be
guided by such directions". R.T.A. while
granting
permits
by
the
impugned
resolution has referred to the aforesaid
directions of S.T.A. and was conscious of
the fact of fixation twenty years model
condition by it and, therefore, it has not
fixed any model condition contrary to that
fixed by S.T.A. What it has done is that it
has granted permits to persons holding
vehicles of not more than ten years old.
Fixing the model condition and granting
permits to better models are two different
things. By model condition, the maximum
2 All Mahraj Uddin and others V. State of U.P. and others
715
period upto which a vehicle can be used as
a stage carriage under a permit is fixed.
Without transgressing the model condition,
it is always open to the transport
authorities to grant permits to those
applicants who have vehicles of better
model. Such a condition is in the interest of
travelling public. The order of the R.T.A.
thus is not contrary to the direction issued
by the S.T.A."

15. The judgment of the Apex Court
in AIR 1980 SC 800, Subhash Chandra
& Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, had
occasion to consider a condition in Section
51(2) (x) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
to the effect that vehicle should not be
more than seven years of age from the date
of registration during the validity of
permit.
The
above
provision
was
challenged. The Apex Court upheld the
said condition. Following was laid down in
paragraph 4 which is quoted below:

"4. Section 51(2) (x) authorises the
impost of any condition, of course, having
a nexus with the statutory purpose. It is
undeniable that human safety is one such
purpose. The State's neglect in this area of
policing public transport is deplorable but
when it does act by prescribing a condition
the court cannot be persuaded into little
legalism and harmful negativism. The
short question is whether the prescription
that the bus shall be at a seven-year old
model one is relevant to the condition of
the vehicle and its passengers' comparative
safety and comfort on our chaotic
highways. Obviously, it is. The older the
model, the less the chances of the latest
safety measures being built into the
vehicle. Every new model incorporates
new devices to reduce danger and promote
comfort. Every new model assures its age
to be young, fresh and strong, less likely to
suffer sudden failures and breakages, less
susceptible to wear and tear and mental
fatigue leading to unexpected collapse.
When we buy a car or any other machine
why do we look for the latest model?
Vintage vehicles are good for centenarian
display of curios and cannot but be mobile
menaces on our notoriously neglected
highways. We have no hesitation to hold,
from the point of view of the human rights
of road users, that the condition regarding
the model of the permitted bus is within
jurisdiction, and not to prescribe such
safety clauses is abdication of statutory
duty."

16.

Another
Division
Bench
judgment of this Court in AIR 1991 Alld
158,
Radhey
Shyam
Sharma
Vs.
Regional
Transport
Authority,
Kathgodam, Nainital, had occasion to
consider Rule 88 of Central Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989 which provided that
motor vehicle covered under permit should
not be more than 9 years old with regard to
national permit. The model condition on
the basis of the aforesaid rule was
challenged and came up for consideration
before the Division Bench of this Court in
a writ petition. The Division Bench upheld
the vires of the rules and also the
condition. Following was laid down in
paragraph 22 which is quoted below:

"22. In view of the reports mentioned
above and for the reasons given in the
counter-affidavit, Government was fully
justified in fixing the age/model condition
of nine years of vehicles for use under
national permit and it cannot be said that
there was no reasons or material with the
Government for framing the impugned
rules. In fact from the perusal of the
aforesaid reports and the reasons given in
the counter-affidavit of the Government,
716 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
we are satisfied that the Government was
fully justified in fixing the age limit of nine
years of a vehicle for operation under
national permit."

17. The copy of the circular dated
05/3/2010, issued by the STA on the basis
of the resolution dated 23/2/2010, issued in
exercise of power under Section 68(4) of
the Act, 1988 has been brought on record
as Annexure SCA-1.

18. A perusal of the aforesaid circular
dated 05/3/2010 clearly indicates that the
STA noticed the earlier period fixed with
regard to various categories of vehicles
including the mini bus, school bus, city bus
and auto rickshaw in different districts
including District Meerut. It was noticed
that non-C.N.G. vehicles are creating
serious air pollution and keeping in view
the traffic problem, it is necessary to fix
the age of the vehicles for safety and
benefit of the general public.

19. In the present case, we are
concerned with the three wheelers only. It
is useful to notice that in Meerut and in
other
metropolitan
cities
for
nonC.N.G.vehicles (three wheelers) 5 years
period had been fixed and for C.N.G.
vehicles 7 years period has been fixed, and
in districts other than metropolitan cities,
C.N.G. vehicles ten years has been fixed
and for non-C.N.G. vehicles 8 years has
been fixed.

20. From the judgements as noticed
above, it is clear that the STA had full
jurisdiction to fix the age of vehicles to be
plied under the permits. Learned counsel
for the petitioners have placed reliance on
the Division Bench judgements of this
Court in Writ Petition Nos.22378/2007
decided on 10/5/2007, and 14050/2010
decided on 18/3/2010. It is useful to quote
the judgment dated 10/5/2007 passed in
Writ Petition No.22378/2007 which is to
the following effect:

"After hearing learned counsel for the
petitioner Shri S.N. Jaiswal and Shri C.K.
Rai, learned Standing Counsel we dispose
of this writ petition in terms of the
judgement and order of this Court dated
15.10.2003 passed in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No.46190 of 2003 (Ram Prakash
& Anr Vs. State of U.P. & Ors) wherein
this Court had issued the following
directions:

"The Secretary, Regional Transport
Authority respondent no.2 shall issue
permit to the petitioners after verifying the
fact that the petitioners have vehicles
which are roadworthy and fit in condition.
He will also ensure that the vehicles which
are owned by the petitioners are of the
model which is within the period of 20
years."

21. A perusal of the aforesaid
judgment clearly indicates that the said
judgment was given on the basis of earlier
judgment and order of this Court dated
15/10/2003, passed in Writ Petition
No.46190/2003, Ram Prakash & Anr Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors.

22. Obviously, the decision under
challenge in Ram Prakash's case (supra)
was a decision of STA prior to 15/10/2003,
and
the
judgements
relied
by
the
petitioners counsel were on the basis of the
judgment of the Division Bench in Writ
Petition
46190/2003
which
has
no
relevance with regard to the subsequent
decision of STA taken on 23/2/2010.If the
age of the vehicle can be prescribed by the
STA under the provisions of the Act, 1988,
2 All Mahraj Uddin and others V. State of U.P. and others
717
which has been answered as Yes by the
Division Benches of this Court as noticed
above, there is no lack of jurisdiction in the
STA in fixing the age of vehicle by its
resolution dated 23/2/2010. Thus, the
Division Bench judgement of this Court
dated 10/5/2007 passed in Writ Petition
No.22378/2007 relying on the earlier
Division Bench judgment of this Court in
the case of Ram Prakash (supra) is no
longer applicable in view of the subsequent
decision and resolution of the STA taken
23/2/2010.

23. Now comes the judgement of the
Tribunal which has been heavily relied by
the learned counsel for the petitioners in
Revision
No.40/2010
Rajesh
Yadav
(supra) decided on 08/12/2010, copy of
which has been filed as Annexure- 2 to the
Rejoinder Affidavit. It is useful to note
para 3 of the judgement which noticed that
the challenge made in the revision was by
the vehicle owners having stage carriage
permit plying buses. From the perusal of
para 3 of the aforesaid judgment, it is clear
that types of vehicles whose owners had
come up in the revision were city bus stage
carriage both C.N.G and non-C.N.G. The
Tribunal also relied on the judgment of
Prakash Sharma (supra) in Writ Petition
No.46190/2003. It is useful to quote
paragraphs 3 and 4 as well as the operative
portion of the judgment dated 08/12/2010
passed by the Tribunal.

"3. Before me the types of vehicles
whose owners come up in revisions for
city bus stage carriage, the age limit for
single storied vehicles before 23.2.2010
was 20 years and for Non C.N.G. city bus
was 15 years and for C.N.G. city bus was
12 year. The Hon'ble High Court's order
dated 09.4.2010 passed in writ petition-A
No.19461 of 2010 Sri Guru Ram Public
School through Principal Vs. State of U.P.
and others has been cited wherein relying
on the order dated 5.10.2003 passed in
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.46190 of
2003 Ram Prakash and another Vs. State
of U.P. and others, the Hon'ble High Court
has laid down as follows:

"The respondent no.3 shall issue
permit to the petitioner after verifying the
fact that the petitioner has a vehicle which
is roadworthy and fit in condition. He will
also ensure that the vehicle which is owned
by the petitioner is of the model which is
within the period of 20 years".

4. Above mentioned order of the
Hon'ble High Court is applicable to the
revisions before me. Therefore, it is hereby
directed that the age limit for the stage
carriages; single stored vehicles shall be 20
years and for non-C.N.G. city bus shall be
15 years and for C.N.G. city bus shall be
12 years as existed before 23.2.2010 with
this observation all the revisions are
disposed of.

..............................

ORDER

Revisions are allowed. Impugned
orders are set aside. It is hereby directed
that the age limit for the stage carriage
plying on various routes:single storied
vehicles shall be 20 years and for nonC.N.G. city bus shall be 15 years and for
C.N.G. city bus shall be 12 years as existed
before 23.2.2010. However, the age limit
for C.N.G. vehicles in Ghaziabad shall be
15 years.

Record received from the lower
authorities be sent back to their offices.
718 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

A copy of this judgment be kept on
the
record
of
each
of
Revisions
Nos.21/2010 to 41/2010, 43/2010 to
64/2010, 69/2010, 99/2010, 100/2010,
104/2010,107/2010 to 158/2010,175/2010
to 177/2010 & 199/2010 and the original
judgment be retained on the record of
Revision No.20/2010.

Sd/-illegible

8.12.10

(Suresh Kumar Srivastava)

Chairman"

24. Thus, before the Tribunal, the
city bus owners both CNG and non-CNG
had challenged the decision of the STA
and from the operative portion of the
judgment, it is clear that the direction was
issued fixing age limit for single storied
vehicle and for non-C.N.G. vehicles city
bus 15 years and for CNG city bus 12
years as existed before 23/2/2010. The
judgment of the Tribunal confines to single
storied vehicles, non-CNG and CNG city
buses and there is no consideration of cases
of auto rickshaw/tempo nor any direction
in the operative portion has been given by
the
Tribunal
with
regard
to
auto
rickshaw/tempo. Thus, in the judgement of
the Tribunal dated 08/12/2010, there is no
direction with regard to the fixing of age of
auto
rickshaw/Tempo
and
the
said
judgement can be relevant only to the
extent of directions issued. However, there
is one aspect of the matter which has been
emphasised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners which cannot be lost sight of
that the Tribunal has set-aside the order of
the STA and the consequence of which
shall be that the entire order is to be treated
as set-aside.

25. We are also of the view that
treating the order of the STA to be setaside
for
buses/mini
buses
and
implementing the said decision with regard
to auto rickshaw/tempo shall not be
appropriate. We, however are constrained
to observe that the Tribunal has passed the
order heavily relying on the Division
Bench judgment of this Court in Writ
Petition
No.46190/2003
decided
on
05/10/2003, in Ram Prakash (supra) which
directions were relevant at the time when
there was no other decision of STA. When
the STA has taken a subsequent decision
giving appropriate reason, the judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court in Writ
Petition
No.46190/2003
decided
on
05/10/2003, in Ram Prakash (supra) cannot
be read too far, nor the said judgment in
anyway fetters the power of the STA to fix
the age of the vehicles or put any model
condition in the permit. It is to be noted
that in this writ petition there is no
challenge to the decision of S.T.A. dated
23/2/2010, thus the reliance on the said
order by the counsel for the petitioners
cannot be said to be misplaced. However,
as observed above, the judgment of the
STA dated 23/2/2010, as circulated by
circular dated 05/3/2010, having been setaside, it shall not be appropriate to rely on
the same. In the circular dated 05/3/2010,
the age of the vehicles as existed prior to
23/2/2010, has been mentioned in the
tabular form which is part of the rejoinder
affidavit as Annexure-1.

26. With regard to city Meerut, for
urban areas the age of auto rickshaw was 7
years and the age of tempo/taxi for rural
areas was 10 to 15 years prior to
23/2/2010. Thus, the age of auto rickshaw
in the city of Meerut as was existing before
23/2/2010, has to be followed and applied
treating the judgement passed by the
S.T.A. dated 23/2/2010 to be set-aside by
the Tribunal. We make it clear that age of
2 All Sudarshan V. Tapesar and others
719
vehicles existing prior to 23/2/2010 shall
hold field till any other decision is taken by
S.T.A. or order dated 08/10/2010 of the
Tribunal is set-aside.

27. In view of the foregoing
discussions and conclusions, we dispose of
this writ petition with the following
directions:

1. The S.T.A. is fully justified to put
model condition regarding age of vehicles
(including three wheeler).

2. The decision of the STA dated
23/2/2010, which is the basis for putting
model condition in the petitioners permit
that vehicles are to be changed after 5
years, having been set-aside, the period of
5 years in the model condition in the
permits of the petitioners shall stand
substituted by the period of 7 years which
was prevalent prior to 23/2/2010.

3. The model condition in the
petitioners vehicles (which are three
wheelers) shall be read to the effect that the
petitioners have to change their vehicles
after 7 years, failing which their permits
shall be treated to be automatically
cancelled.

4. That the above directions shall
continue till the STA takes any other
decision fixing any other age of vehicles
(three wheelers) in accordance with law.

28. The prayer of the petitioners that
a direction be issued to the respondent
no.2, Regional Transport Officer, Meerut
to permit the petitioners to ply their three
wheelers up to the age of 20 years, cannot
be granted and is refused.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.05.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28924 o 1994

Sudarshan

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Tapesar and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.K.Varma
Sri Siddharth Varma

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri R.N.Rai
Sri B.L.Srivastava
Sri Purushottam Upadhyay
S.C.

U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holding
Act,
Section
49-bar
of
subsequent
proceedings-Respondents filed Suit for
declaration of Bhumidhar of plot in
question-as the plot in question has been
developed as grove with permission of
Land Lord-have became absolute ownerdismissed by Trail Court as barred by
Section 49 of the Act-1st Appellate Court
set-a-side
the
order
remanded
the
matter
for
fresh
decision-as
consolidation
authorities
have
no
jurisdiction to allot the same to any
other
person-Second
Appeal
also
dismissed-hence
consolidation
authorities have every jurisdiction to
decide the title of the grove land alsohence the order passed by the Appellate
Court illegal-High Court affirm the view
of Trail Court.

Held: Para 5

Consolidation in respect of grove land
cannot take place in the sense that a plot
having grove cannot be given to any
other person in rearrangement of chak.
However, as far as question of title is